Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?

[alpha]

Just wanted to add that I'm pretty sure all credible philosophy is based on empiricism nowadays, thanks to Hume.

you're starting to sound like leo, which isn't a good thing.

[alpha]

Keeping romanticism out of philosophy is important. What one wants and what is are vital distinctions.

I disagree (though I could never either confirm or deny that I ever said such a thing in any official capacity). In science, romanticism is counter-productive, but in philosophy, it can be a tool at the master's disposal. For instance, I have once or twice suspected that the entire character of Socrates was a literary invention, or, I guess, a philosophical invention, of Plato's—a romantic fiction designed to inspire students to become more noble. Myth is an ancient tool of philosophers to convey ideas to people resistant to argument—ya know, 'the moral of the story' and all that. Aren't all myths and parables like that romantic? Or am I misunderstanding romanticism?

wow! now that's what i call bad philosophy.

[alpha]

When you read a fiction writer like Hermann Hesse it is easy to say he philosophizes. But, never having read them, I wouldn't call the twilight books works of philosophy at all. Philosophy and fiction are closer than people, even philosophers, think, but they are not the same one thing. It would be a disservice to describe philosophy as "fanstasy without limits" though it does require some imagination to pull it off well, as does any writing.

without an adequate imagination, one can't philosophize.

[Risto]

How about the music analogy. Many people say bad music isn't music at all. If I just start wailing away on a drum set, it isn't soothing, inspiring or entertaining. It effects us just like a cat falling into a garbage can and knocking out all of the garbage. If it is true that if it behaves like a duck then it is a duck, then if it effects us like non-music it is non-music. Likewise, it is philosophy if it makes us wiser, and not philosophy if it doesn't. Thus, bad philosophy is not philosophy.

Are you saying there isn't bad and good philosophy, only philosophy and non-philosophy? In science for example, there more or less clearly is good and bad science as well as pseudoscience (something that expresses itself like it is science when it isn't) and non-science (something that doesn't even try to be science). But science is perhaps a bit less ambiguous than philosophy. It seems, however, that the same idea could be used for philosophy.

The purpose of music is to soothe, inspire, or entertain like you said. If Justin Bieber performs and I am not entertained, can I say that he isn't actually doing music? He is clearly performing it for the purpose of entertaining, etc. and a lot of people are indeed entertained. If you were to just start wailing away on a drum set, would your goal be to entertain, etc.? If it were and some people were entertained, for example, would it become music? Bad music, but still music, or still non-music? Why?

If you argue and your goal is to make us wiser but you fail to do so, are you doing non-philosophy or bad philosophy?

[HexHammer]

Good philosophers run towards the point, not away from it.

Wauw ..not very deep statement, useless at best.

Dude. I've yet to see you contribute one thing to this community except being an excellent example of how not to conduct yourself in a philosophy forum. All you do is tell others they are ignorant. You are a pest.

Least I can say intelligent things, contrary you.

[Jaded Sage]

Just wanted to add that I'm pretty sure all credible philosophy is based on empiricism nowadays, thanks to Hume.

you're starting to sound like leo, which isn't a good thing.

Well, credible scholastic philosophy. It's a university thing I think. I'm not sure anyone in academia takes you seriously if not. Personally, I subscribe to a broader notion of philosophy.

[Jaded Sage]

Keeping romanticism out of philosophy is important. What one wants and what is are vital distinctions.

I disagree (though I could never either confirm or deny that I ever said such a thing in any official capacity). In science, romanticism is counter-productive, but in philosophy, it can be a tool at the master's disposal. For instance, I have once or twice suspected that the entire character of Socrates was a literary invention, or, I guess, a philosophical invention, of Plato's—a romantic fiction designed to inspire students to become more noble. Myth is an ancient tool of philosophers to convey ideas to people resistant to argument—ya know, 'the moral of the story' and all that. Aren't all myths and parables like that romantic? Or am I misunderstanding romanticism?

wow! now that's what i call bad philosophy.

What I said or what I think he might have done?

[Jaded Sage]

How about the music analogy. Many people say bad music isn't music at all. If I just start wailing away on a drum set, it isn't soothing, inspiring or entertaining. It effects us just like a cat falling into a garbage can and knocking out all of the garbage. If it is true that if it behaves like a duck then it is a duck, then if it effects us like non-music it is non-music. Likewise, it is philosophy if it makes us wiser, and not philosophy if it doesn't. Thus, bad philosophy is not philosophy.

Are you saying there isn't bad and good philosophy, only philosophy and non-philosophy? In science for example, there more or less clearly is good and bad science as well as pseudoscience (something that expresses itself like it is science when it isn't) and non-science (something that doesn't even try to be science). But science is perhaps a bit less ambiguous than philosophy. It seems, however, that the same idea could be used for philosophy.

The purpose of music is to soothe, inspire, or entertain like you said. If Justin Bieber performs and I am not entertained, can I say that he isn't actually doing music? He is clearly performing it for the purpose of entertaining, etc. and a lot of people are indeed entertained. If you were to just start wailing away on a drum set, would your goal be to entertain, etc.? If it were and some people were entertained, for example, would it become music? Bad music, but still music, or still non-music? Why?

If you argue and your goal is to make us wiser but you fail to do so, are you doing non-philosophy or bad philosophy?

Oooh! Pseudo-philosophy! Great term. I might start using that. Yes, philosophy is ambiguous. I mean it to include anything that makes us wiser. That might include all of science, and all of literature. It might not. We have next to define wisdom.

Great strategy to start with Beiber. So there is intentional, unintentional, successful and unsuccessful. Anything that successfully makes us wiser, intentionally or unintentially, I call philosophy. Anything that intends to make us wiser unsuccessfully, I place into another yet-unnamed category, perhaps bad philosophy. I call pseudo-philosophy anything that calls itself philosophy but doesn't intend to make us wiser and doesn't successfully do so. And of course everything that is not philosophy is non-philosophy. Also, I think even one person constitutes an "us" so that if even one person is made wiser by something that something is rightfully called philosophy.

[alpha]

Well, credible scholastic philosophy. It's a university thing I think. I'm not sure anyone in academia takes you seriously if not. Personally, I subscribe to a broader notion of philosophy.

i'm not sure what exactly "scholastic philosophy" is, much less "credible scholastic philosophy". also, "academia" is overrated. like i said, one really doesn't wanna end up with a mindset like leo's. the most important (and rare) thing is independent thinking (by 'independent' i don't mean baseless).

[Risto]

also, "academia" is overrated. like i said, one really doesn't wanna end up with a mindset like leo's. the most important (and rare) thing is independent thinking (by 'independent' i don't mean baseless).

What do you mean by "academia is overrated". What specific mindset is questioned here? And what precisely do you then mean by "independent thinking"?

[alpha]

I disagree (though I could never either confirm or deny that I ever said such a thing in any official capacity). In science, romanticism is counter-productive, but in philosophy, it can be a tool at the master's disposal. For instance, I have once or twice suspected that the entire character of Socrates was a literary invention, or, I guess, a philosophical invention, of Plato's—a romantic fiction designed to inspire students to become more noble. Myth is an ancient tool of philosophers to convey ideas to people resistant to argument—ya know, 'the moral of the story' and all that. Aren't all myths and parables like that romantic? Or am I misunderstanding romanticism?

wow! now that's what i call bad philosophy.

What I said or what I think he might have done?

the whole notion (your suspicion) is absurd.

[alpha]

also, "academia" is overrated. like i said, one really doesn't wanna end up with a mindset like leo's. the most important (and rare) thing is independent thinking (by 'independent' i don't mean baseless).

What do you mean by "academia is overrated". What specific mindset is questioned here? And what precisely do you then mean by "independent thinking"?

by "academia is overrated" i mean that the so called academic community isn't infallible or even necessarily more knowledgeable or intelligent (at least in some areas).

the mindset to which i'm referring is the so called scientists who call themselves non-newtonian scientists, and believe that science (non-newtonian "science" no less) applies to everything.

independent thinking means not being a sheep. i don't mean rejecting everything, but not completely accepting what hasn't been conclusively proven, just because it's what's generally accepted (whether by the majority or by certain groups of people).

[Risto]

independent thinking means not being a sheep. i don't mean rejecting everything, but not completely accepting what hasn't been conclusively proven, just because it's what's generally accepted (whether by the majority or by certain groups of people).

Thanks for clarifications and this sounds like a good addition to good vs bad philosophy!

[Jaded Sage]

Well, credible scholastic philosophy. It's a university thing I think. I'm not sure anyone in academia takes you seriously if not. Personally, I subscribe to a broader notion of philosophy.

i'm not sure what exactly "scholastic philosophy" is, much less "credible scholastic philosophy". also, "academia" is overrated. like i said, one really doesn't wanna end up with a mindset like leo's. the most important (and rare) thing is independent thinking (by 'independent' i don't mean baseless).

I mean scholastic and academic as synonymns here, irresponsibly, as I think there is a school of thought called scholasticism. But I fully agree: academia is over-rated, and one of the greatest virtues of this sort of thing is independent-thinking, the other being open-mindedness, which I think could be described as father and son.

[alpha]

i'm not sure what exactly "scholastic philosophy" is, much less "credible scholastic philosophy". also, "academia" is overrated. like i said, one really doesn't wanna end up with a mindset like leo's. the most important (and rare) thing is independent thinking (by 'independent' i don't mean baseless).

I mean scholastic and academic as synonymns here, irresponsibly, as I think there is a school of thought called scholasticism. But I fully agree: academia is over-rated, and one of the greatest virtues of this sort of thing is independent-thinking, the other being open-mindedness, which I think could be described as father and son.

don't be sexist! it can be mother and daughter too.